But when I click your link I just get an F-16 text page and my Slovak is still not as good as it should be.

Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet. I've seen better, but those were part of my introductory briefing on the F-35 and I'm not sure how widely I'm allowed to distribute those.

Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej, For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine. I've seen this F-16 before but the smaller images of the inlet disassembled are very revealing as they don't appear to show any suction device for boundary layer removal though there is an interesting recess right at the front of the 'hump' which is covered when assembled. Do you know what this is for? The images in-flight look potentially retouched just around the intake area to this photochopper's eye, maybe to hide that secret bit?. And that chin spike is for aerodynamics only you say. Thanks once again, Woody

Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej, For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine. .........

Hi To All,Special Regards to flaterick and .If it wasn't for a friend, I would not have seem my picture of the F-23A weapons bay configurations posted.

The ATF weapons capacity was one of its most debated issue of the program. "How many missiles to carry ?" was a question that was answered: 6 of existing design or 8 of new or modified design. The Existing missiles of the time were the AIM-9L and the AIM-120A. The New/Improved missiles were the ASRAAM and the AIM-201C respectively.

It's been found in practice that the F-22 is the first fighter that actually "runs out of missiles" on a regular basis and could keep on shooting down enemy aircraft if it had more. It so Ironic that its 2D trust vectoring nozzles and super maneuverability do not play any part in that "shooting gallery" type of story that happens in exercises. It has even ended up using its gun because of lack of missiles.

A conceptual flaw if you ask me.

Ever since I run across the Northrop Patent in Reply #28, some 3 years ago I was fascinated by the ingenuity of the design and the potential that it has. 1st. Its amazing how little space can 4 AIM-120A can take. You can never fit 4 like that on external stores. And some people thought that internal bays for aircraft meant less space for weapons. Only they forgot that internally carried weapons do not need forward launch clearance zone and can be placed much closer to each other.

2nd. lets analyze the launcher weight. We have a common launch mechanism and we have a common holding mechanism. Compare that to the weight of 4 externally carried pylons for all 4 AMRAAMs.

3rd. The potential it has when considering the AIM-120C with the clipped wings. If we look at the launcher as it is now we see that the wings of the bottom missile determine its proximity to the launch door in the same way the wings of the top missile determine the height of the mechanism. Similarly the wings on all missiles make the width of the whole launcher. Lastly the distance between the missiles are also limited by the wings. See a pattern. What if we are to clip those wings like on the AIM-120C variant?

If we are to design the whole mechanism around the AIM-120C, it will be 22% shorter and 35% narrower. In other words, you can say that 3 of the new launchers will fit on the place of 2 of the old ones. The F-23 weapons bay is almost as tall as it is wide as seen on the declassified video footage. If it were designed to carry 2 of those launchers with 2 AIM-120A each (the minimum), it can easily be modified to carry 3 with 3 AIM-120C each. That’s 9 total.

However this concept has its critics which say: A jam in one of the missiles will render the other above it useless. This is funny to me as missile launchers are hell of a lot less complex than engines yet some fighters have single engines. And the Lockheed 1985 wining ATF proposal had a revolving launcher. If it failed all the missiles might fail to launch save only one!

Looking at bays for the short range missiles, the F-22 has 1 for each Sidewinder missile. A sidewinder must be a dams important weapon for the ATF to have is own weapons bay. . Fitting two missiles is a lot more difficult as they have to be extended sideways and the wings cannot overlap. At least Lockheed designed it for access panel for other things too.The F-23A had a dedicated short missile weapons bay. It can also carry a total 2 Sidewinder missiles. Converting it to carry 3 missiles (AIM-9X or ASRAAM) could be as each as the F-22 conversion from 2 A models to 3 C models of AMRAAM in its each main missile bay.

All in the F-23A with a slight change in the launchers could carry 4 more missiles or 50% more than the F-22A

A pics of all that will come shortly

Logged

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Well, if you go about 60% of the way down the page, he's got some excellent pictures of the JIST F-16 inlet.

Thanks Elmayerle/Matej, For some reason the pictures don't load on that page of Mataj's site when I use Firefox (maybe they don't for other people either). I just tried Explorer and it works fine. I've seen this F-16 before but the smaller images of the inlet disassembled are very revealing as they don't appear to show any suction device for boundary layer removal though there is an interesting recess right at the front of the 'hump' which is covered when assembled. Do you know what this is for? The images in-flight look potentially retouched just around the intake area to this photochopper's eye, maybe to hide that secret bit?. And that chin spike is for aerodynamics only you say. Thanks once again, Woody

There isn't a suction device to clear the boundary layer. The bump and inlet are designed to divert it from the inlet without diverter plate or any other device. This is one way in which the F-35's RCS in reduced.

Regarding F-23A 'revolutionary launcher' I must say that Lantinian was first independent researcher that discovered this Northrop's launcher patent several years ago (he looked through several thousands of them). After appearing Google patents, search became more easier, but one can hardly imagine any correspondence between Northrop patent title and its subject.

Many thaks to Flaterick to pointing out my patent research thing. I would not have said it myself.

Still elmayerle had a very good in Reply #21 . YF-23 design allowed not only aft and fore movement of the Bays but also increase in depth. There are no engines or airducs on top of the bay, only fuel and minor systems..

Looking at the F-23A as an aircraft designer I would say: yes its longer but since when lengthening the airplane is more risky than making it shorter, because the F-22A is indeed shorter and thinner in its middle section where you have weapons, fuel, air intakes, gun magazine. Packing the same stuff in less space is more riskier to me. Also lets not forget that F-22A had completely redesigned main weapons bay doors.

Now if we recall some of the problems the F-22 design went trough.

1. Overheating rear fuselage in Supercruise. Compare the rear of YF-22 and F-22A.How thinner it is on the production model. The F-23 with widely spaced engine blocks would not have had the problem of overheating.

2. Shockwaves in the Engine inlets requiring a strengthen forward fuselage after Raptor 01. No wonder, the air intakes on the A model are obviously shorted than the prototype. The F-23A has inlets way more optimized to handle supersonic airflow and the adoption of the concept by the F-35 only proves it.

3. F-22 was always criticized by not being able to carry big bombs. The latest FB-22 proposal features bulged up main weapon doors so it can house the 2000lb JDAM, yet the fuselage is the same is used with no lengthening to reduce cost. The YF-23 had a deeper bay and would have no problem fitting the 2000lb JDAM.

4. The 1994 redesign due to signature problem, costing probably a year delay in the F-22 program. Looking at the F-22A and you ca see it borrowed a lot of the Black Widow features: he shape of the nose, the way the aircraft brakes, the probes measuring AoA on the side of the radome, the minimum number of edges every panel, the topside of the engines, the clipping of the all moving tails. Yet the F-23A design features stealth/performance blending from the next level, like the inlet cone design.

5. Weight. The inability for the F-22 design to meet it weigh target is attributed to the failure of its designers to meat their goal of 50% Composites in the Airframe(2 as well). From the news article flaterick send me it is clear that the F-22A proposal in material is similar to the YF-23 design (one step behind). Also the F-23A featues not only 50% composits but BMI termosets account for a higher percentage out of that than the same BMI termoset do out of the total composits used on the F-22A, which are only 24%.(Flight International March 1997)

To me the F-23A would have had easier time meeting its weight target. As far as risk goes the change between Lockheeds 1985 winning design and the YF-22 tells me all I need to know about confidence in concept and the ability of USAF to choose their aeroplane based on their flying qualities. Same with the Rockwell F-X submition looking so much like SU-27. I hope the PAKFA does not turn out the be looking like the YF-23. I am going to be massively upset with defense secretary Rice, who chose the F-22

Regards, to all

P.S. I hope you are all enjoyng this discusion as much as I am

Logged

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

The main reason given for the redesign of the nose (cockpit/intake) area of the F-22 was due to the poor downward visibility from the cockpit of the YF-22. Therefore the intakes were shortened and the cockpit was moved forward. It also helped make the F-22 pretty good looking as opposed to the YF-22s butt ugly look.

Of course, apparently they didn't learn that lesson, because the same request was made when going from the X-35 to the F-35. They moved the cockpit forward and moved the inlets back for better visibility from the cockpit.

As for moving the intake apex on the F-35 from the middle of the side to the waterline/upper shoulder point, I am guessing they did that due to vortices off of the apex going into the inlet due to sideslip at moderate alpha. By putting it at the top corner, the vortices shed there now go over the aircraft (I hope). But I'm just guessing on that point. Whatever the reason it does look better.